THE DEFENCE COUNSELS ETHICS IN PLEA BARGAINING:LOSING SIGHT OF THE INNOCENT?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The vast majority of accused who appear before a criminal court in Canada will not proceed to trial and most of those will plead guilty to some offence. This means that a substantial portion of a defence lawyer’s cases will be resolved. Sometimes this will occur after months or years of negotiation, sometimes on the court-house steps, but all will involve some form of discussion between Crown and defence. These negotiations have commonly been referred to, by the public and participants in the criminal justice system alike, as "plea bargaining". Plea bargaining is now an accepted and integral part of our criminal justice system. The process involves an exchange of information between Crown counsel and defence counsel about the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and the circumstances of the offence and of the offender. Experienced Crown and defence counsel use this opportunity to ensure that individual justice is done. Through this process, an accused will surrender his right to trial, with its accompanying procedural safeguards, in exchange for concessions aimed at sentence reduction and certainty. For some, the term plea bargaining implies that justice is a commodity that can be bought, sold and bartered and thus negative connotations have resulted. It also inaccurately assumes that plea bargaining relates solely to agreements concerning guilty pleas. Discussions between counsels frequently include a vast array of considerations, much more than negotiated guilty pleas, and sometimes do not, in fact, result in guilty pleas at all . Whether this practice is a blight or a blessing on the criminal justice system has been much debated . Due to its strong focus on efficiency and its resemblance to an "assembly-line conveyor belt" , plea bargaining can be linked to what the American scholar Herbert Packer defined as a crime control model of justice whereby "the criminal justice process is controlled by prosecutors, with the primary aim being a stream-lined guilty plea". The defence counsel’s role is nonetheless very important in ensuring that the innocent accused does not get "caught" in what could be seen as a criminal factory, especially if the accused decides to "cut their losses" and plead guilty. In this way, defence counsel has a duty to protect the innocent accused’s rights and circumvent this incremental descent into poor judgment, not forgetting the image of the criminal justice system itself. What is the defence counsel’s ethics in this process? The main focus of this essay will be on the ethical considerations for defence counsel when engaging in plea bargaining, in the subset of resolution discussions, the negotiated guilty plea, while keeping in mind the risk of wrongful conviction. This essay will show that, to the exception of the Canadian Bar Association Model Code of Professional Conduct, there is little guidance on ethics in the plea bargaining process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,049 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,019 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».